Document symbol: AI2174 .

Best copy available 2 General Assembly - Seventh Session - Annexes .y DOCUMENT A/2174

Report of the Special Committee for the consideration of the methods and procedures of the General Assembly for dealing with legal- and drafting questions [Original text: English] [8 Sefitelmber 19521

I. INTR~DUCTI~N Iran: Mr. Djalal Abdoh (representative) and Mr.’ Fereydoun Adamiyat (alternate) 1. On 20 December 1951, the General Assembly IsracE: Mr. Gideon Rafael (representative) adopted resolution 597 (VI), which provides as follows : SwecEen: Mr. Oscar Thorsing (representative) and “The General Assembly, Baron Gtiran von Otter (alterntate) “Co&dering that various ideas were expressed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics: Mr. Georgi F.?, during the debate on the methods and procedures for Saksin (representative) dealing with legal and drafting questions, and in the United Kingdow of Great Britain and Nor,them Ire-’ draft resolutions and amendments submitted to the Eand: Mr. F. A. Vallat (representative) Sixth Committee concerning the scope of the prob- lems, the methods for their solution and the nature United States of America: Mr. James N. Hyde (repre- af these methods, all of which testify to the com- sentative) and Mr. Charles D. Cook (alternate) plexity of the problems raised, Yetieztiela: Mr. Victor M. PCrez Perozo (representa:. “Believing that in the circumstances further study tive) of all the problems involved is necessary, 3. The following officers were elected unanimously: Mr. Abdoh (Iran), Chairman ; Mr. PCrez Perozo (Ve- “1. Establishes a special committee of fifteen mem- nezuela), Vice-Chairman ; and Mr. CrCpault (Canada), bers consisting of one representative of each of the following Member States : , Canada, Chile, Rapporteur. Czechoslovakia, Egypt, El Salvador, , Indo- 4. The documents, draft resolutions and amendments’ nesia, Iran, , Sweden!, the Union of Soviet submitted to the Sixth Committee, its report to tht Socialist Republics, the of Great General Assembly and the records of its debates were Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of made available to the Special Committee. The SpeciaY America and Venezuela, to meet at the Headquarters Committee also had before it memoranda prepared bq~ of the ; the Secretary-General, as requested by paragraph 3 011 resolution 597 (VI), on the work of the Sixth Col&~ “2. Requests the Special Committee to consider mittee (A/AC.60/L.Z), on proposals by Committee1 the documents, draft resolutions and amendments for requests for advisory opinions from the Inter submitted to the Sixth Committee, as well as the national Court of Justice (A/AC.60/L.3), on reference records of its debates, to study the question further of matters to the International Law Commission (A, and to report thereon to the General Assembly at its AC.60/L.4) and on proposals by Cornmitttees fo seventh session ; amendments to the rules of procedure of the General “3. Requests the Secretary-General to carry out Assembly (A/AC.6O/L.5). appropriate ,studies, to collaborate closely with the Special Committee and to submit to it, as he may II. AGENDA AND PLAN OF WORK consider appropriate, proposals for the handling of the problems dealt with in the present resolution.” 5. At its first meeting on 27 August 19.52, the Speciz 2. The Special Committee for the consideration of Committee adopted its agenda (A/AC.6O/L.l). It als the methods and procedures of the General Assembly adopted a plan of work (A/AC.60/L.6) for the discu: for dealing with legal and drafting questions held six sion of the various aspects of the problem referred t meetings from 27 August to 4 September 1952. The it by the General Assembly, Some delegations too’ members appointed by the General Assembly were the view that the plan of work in some respects wer represented as follows .during the Committee’s work : beyond the task assigned to the Special Committr by the General Assembly. A large majority of the Con BeZg&z: Mr. Joseph Nisot (representative) and Mr. mittee, however, thought that that was not the cas Georges Cassiers (alternate) and that the plan was a convenient division of tl Canada: Mr. A. Raymond CrCpault (representative) subject matter for the purpose of discussion. The pla of work was adopted by 12 votes to none, with CIzile: Mr. H,oracio Sujrez (representative) and Mrs. abstentions. The Special Committee’s discussions ark Margarita Gallo-Muller (alternate) decisi,ons on general principles and under the varial Czechoslovakia: Mr. Karel PetrieIka (representative) headings and sub-headings of the plan of work a:[ Egygt: Mr. Saleh Ma.hmoud (representative) described below. El Salvador: Mr. Miguel Raf,ael Urquia (representa- tive) and Mr. Rafael EguizLbal (alternate) III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS France: Mr, Pierre Ordonneau (representative) 6. From the outset of the ,discussions, all membe In&tie&a: Mr. Soeleiman Hoesin Tajibnapis (repre- of the Special Committee were agreed on the necessi sentative) of establishing for the work of the General Assemb -’ Agenda item 53 3 ;” “conditions under which justice and respect for the 10. Some delegations were concerned lest the Com- obligations arising from treaties and other sources of mittees of the General Assembly should be in some WW! international law can be maintained”, All laid emphasis degree subordinated to the Sixth Committee in dealing on the Prilnary importance of ,the Charter and the rule with those types of questions. They feared that the IgliJij of law in the work of the United Nations. Sixth Committee might be overburdened if it had to be 19j?i 7. The lnajority of the Special Committee thought consulted on all such matters. Others thought that d nr!P that, while existing methods and procedures for dealing the preparation of texts on those questions could best with legal and drafting questions had not yet led to any be performed by the Committee which was considering serious abuses, they were susceptible of improvement, the substance of the agenda item. and that such improvement would make it more certain 11. It was considered by other delegations that the :) “1 that there would be no ‘abuses in the future, It was Sixth Committee was primarily a group of representa- also noted that such changes as the General Assembly tives of governments, and that it was a mistake to try xgi i* might adopt in that field would be kept under review to use it as a body of legal experts. The advice of the r and the Assembly would be free to modify or repeal Sixth Committee or of legal sub-committees composed ran !,, them if they did not work out. Some delegations, how- of representatives to the General Assembly would not ever, took the view that the problem could not be solved necessarily be based on purely legal grounds. Agenda on a purely technical, procedural level. In their opinion, items which were proposed for the purpose of securing (rep& present procedures were adequate, and what was neces- an advisory opinion might well be initially assigned to k) sary was that certain Member States should abandon the Sixth ‘Committee, but there was no ‘advantage in ejenti policies wllich those delegations claimed had led in the consulting it 011 proposals for such requests and pro- p past to violations of ‘the Charter and of international posals to refer matters to the International Law Com- jaw. mission which were made in the course of discussions (3. There was general agreement that economy of in another Committee. the General Assembly’s time was a consideration of 12. On the other hand, it was argued that there paramount import,ance in recommending solutions to the would be no subordination of other Committees to the problem assigned to the Special Committee by the Sixth Committee if the latter only gave advice and did General Assembly. Any recommendations made by the not make a binding decision on the question referred Special Committee should not prolong the duration of to it. Consultation of the Sixth Committee on those the Assembly’s sessions, but should permit the Assembly types of questions would not overburden it, some dele- to use the time at its disposal more effectively. Many gations stated, since such questions did not arise very delegations expressed a desire to avoid excessive rigidity frequently and since the Sixth Committee had always in methods and procedures, as such rigidity might been able to complete its work before some other Com- prevent the General Assembly and its Main Committees mittees. from exercising a necessary discretion with regard to 13. Those delegations agreed that the Sixth Com- particu1ar cluestions. The view was also expressed that mittee was in a sense a political body, since it was ;firT(” ireater use should be made of the services of the legal composed of representatives of governments, but they res k;‘I and technical staff of the Secretariat to facilitate the believed that it was in a better position than any other work of the Assembly. i;Clld organ to advise the General Assembly on legal matters. 9. The members of the Special Committee also In accordance with the terms of the Charter, advisory shared a desire that the competence of the Main Com- opinions could be requested only on legal questions, mittees of the General Assembly should be respected. and it was important that the requests should be well ’ Some delegations thought that, for that reason, the drafted. The Sixth Committee was especially competent to give opinions as to the functions and workload of the sp&$ recommendations of the Special Committee should, in International Law Commission, since it reviewed the it aIs1 all cases be limited to the suggestion of methods which Commission’s reports. The Sixth Committee had also discus a Committee might adopt if it deemed it wise to do SO been consulted in the past on most of the amendments :rrcd I( in the light of all the circumstances. ,Other delegations, to the rules of procedure. ns tooi however, thought that the recommendations should be ‘1s \vd more definite, and that to require a Committee under 14. Some delegations, however, thought it essential LtullitteL certain circumstances to seek legal advice, which would that Committees should retain the option to have re- 1c Con ‘I in no case be binding, was not an infringement of the quests for advisory opinions drafted by sub-committees jle cali competence of that Committee. composed of their ow,n members. Such drafting might of thi be too intimately connected with matters of substance to be performed by another Committee. ‘k Flai IV, METEIODS AND PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH with :: LEGAL QUESTIONS 15. The United Kingdom submitted draft proposals DIE an/ (A/AC.60/L.7), and Belgium also submitted a draft varioq; Methods for the han.dling of specijic legal questions (A/AC.fjO/L@. Both those drafts were withdrawn ork at& in favour of three drafts (A/ACBO/L.ll, A/AC,GO/ (a) Ji’eqzLests fan advisory opinions from the Inter- L.12 and A/AC.E;O/L.13) submitted jointly by Belgium, national COW? of Justice; Canada and ,the United Kingdom, which were adopted ! (b) Pro@saals to refer a nflatter to the International as paragraphs (a>, (b) and (c) of the recommendations Law Com/yMission; at the end of the present report. nut&a (c) Proposals to amend the General Assembly’s rules 16. ~1 Salvador submitted two amendments (A/ ~~~~~$ af procedure applicable to the consideration of legal a*d AC.60/L.9 and A/AC.60/L.10) to the first two para- graphs of the United Kingdom draft (A/AC.6O/L.7) ; dmf t&g pMStiO?tS. 4 Genera1 Assembly - Seventh Session - Annexes those amendments were later transferred to the first mendation by the Special Committee was necessary. It two of the joint drafts (A/AC.GO/L.ll and A/AC,60/ was pointed out that, under the present rules of proce- ~12). The amendments provided that a Committee dure, the problem ‘could be solved from the start by should ask for advice on requests for advisory opinions the reference of items of mixed legal and non-legal and proposals to refer a matter to the International character to joint committees of the Sixth Committee Law Commission only “if that Committee deems it and another Committee. It was also possible, without necessary and useful”. change in the present ruIes, for any Committee to establish a sub-committee of legal experts, or to refer 17. The Special Committee voted on the proposals the legal aspects of an item to the Sixth Committee for before it at its fourth meeting on 29 August 1952. advice. The amendment of El Salvador (A/AC.60/L.9) to 22. The procedure of referring legal aspects of the first joint draft (A/AC.60&.11) was rejected by agenda items to the Sixth Committee was criticized 7 votes to 5, with one abstention. by some delegations as cumbersome and time-wasting, The first joint .draft (A/AC.BO/L.ll) of Belgium, since the same item would be discussed by two bodies Canada and the United Kingdom was adopted by 8 of sixty members. votes to 4, with 2 abstentions. 23. Other delegations contended that it was too early The amendment of El Salvador (A/AC.60/L.l0) to in the life of the General Assembly to select one or two the second joint #draft (A/AC.60/L.12) was rejected out of the wide range of available methods for dealing by 7 votes to 6, with one abstention. with the legal aspects of agenda items; it was desirable to keep procedure in that respect as flexible as possible, The second joint draft (A/AC.6O/L.12) of Belgium, On the other hand, a number of delegations thought Canada and the United Kingdom was adopted by 9 that a recommendation by the Special Committee would votes to 4, with one abstention. be useful, so that attention might be directed to the The third joint ,draft (A/AC.60/L.13) of Belgium, desirability of giving separate consideration to legal Canada and the United Kingdom was adopted by 12 aspects of questions. votes to 2, with no abstentions. 24. A draft proposal (A/ACdO/L.14) by Canada, submitted as a basis for discussion and a draft (A/ Proposals for reference of legal questions to the Sixtlz AC60/L.15) by Belgium were withdrawn in favour Comittee or to spe&d committees of a revised draft (A/AC.60/L.14/Rev.l) prepared by an informal drafting group and sponsored by Canada, 18. The Special Commit,tee recognized that that which was adopted as paragraph (d) of the recom- heading covered two distinct problems : first, the assign- mendations at the end of the present report. It was ment of agenda items to Main Committees by the made clear that, under that proposal, there would be no General Assembly at the outset of each session and, mandatory reference to the Sixth Committee and it second, the handling of legal aspects of an agenda item would be left entirely to the Committee concerned to which appeared important during discussion by a Main decide both whether the legal aspects were important Committee other than the Sixth Committee. enough to warrant reference to another body and 19. As to the first of those probIems, the Speciaf whether a special sub-committee of the Committee con- Committee recalled that rule 97 of the rules of procedure cerned or the Sixth Committee should be asked to of the General Assembly provided that “Items relating give advice. to the same category of subjects shall be referred to 25. A draft proposal (A/AC.60/L.16) of Sweden the committee or committees dealing with that category 1’ 31. Some dclcg~tions twrt was withdrawn in favour of a United Kingdom amend- let resultscould lx obtr~irrvtl of subjects . . .“. It also noted that a recommendation ment (A/AC.60/L.19) to the revised Canadian draft of the Special Committee on Methods and Procedures, kmbly rcsolutkrns IQ! prov approved by the General Assembly in resolution 362 (A/AC.60/L.34/Rev.l) ; the latter amendment would o/MainCommittw slksulti c (IV) of 22 October 1949 and annexed to the rules of have replaced the words “That, when a Committee &ials of the Sccrctarixt ;II procedure, provided that “. . . questions which may be considers the legal aspects of a question important, the lk in style, form and thct considered as falling within the competence of two or Committee should. , .” by the words “That,_ if. at least Ftrenecessary. one-third of the members present and votjng at a.< more committees, should preferably be referred to the 32,Other delegations thou committee with the lightest agenda”. meeting of a Committee consider the legal aspects of a question important, the Committee shall . . .“. That pro- Wur$ c but also the ch;lirn 20. In view of those provisions, the present Special vision was put forward on the ground that a substantial I ommittec should also 11; Committee did not find it necessary to make any minority of a Committee should be able to ensure that $ drafting8 of rl~solutiuns SI. formal recommendation on the allocation of agenda separate consi&ration would be given to the legal j3, 011 the Qthcr himd, items at the opening of each session, It was confident aspects of an item. Ihat,while it was a~w:ip p that the General Committee, in making recommenda- +hmmihs t0 c0t~stJlt tilt! tions to the General Assembly on the distribution of 26. At its fifth meeting on 29 August 1952, the Spe- prohlelns,such co,,sull;ltiotl agenda items, would continue to bear in mind the Sixth cial Committee voted on the proposals before it. Nlsory, Committee’s function, laid down in rule 99 of the rules of procedure, as the legal committee. The United Kingdom amendment (A/AC.6O/L.19) j4* l-3 SalWlOr sklbmittc. was rejected by 7 votes to 3, with 4 abstentions. bc~60/L20), which \v;~s v 21. On the second problem, the handling of legal “@isedtext (A/Ac,(j()/I. aspects of agenda items which arose in the course of The revised Canadian draft proposal (A/ACdO/ lmendme,ltsby the Unjtrci 1 the discussions of Committees other than the Sixth L.14/Rev.l) was adopted by 9 votes to 5, with no&l wn’ and T

V. METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH the fifth meeting on 29 August 1952, and is reproduced DRAFTING QuESTIONS as paragraph (e) of the recommendations at the end Drafting of ,cmnplex legal instrments such as inter- of the present report. It was the understanding of the national ag?-eeanents, st&ufes of tr&nals, etc. Special Committee that the recommendation made in paragraph (e) would in no way prejudice or hinder the 27. At the opening of the discussion, the United establishment by Committees of ad hog sub-committees Kingdom submitted a draft proposal (A/AC.6O/L.18) to undertake drafting tasks. providing that in principle the drafting of certain 35. In addition to the above proposals, the United specified types of complex legal qexts should be carried Kingdom submitted a draft (A/AChO/L.22) which out or reviewed by a body Gf experts legally qualified provided for periodic meetings of the rapporteurs of to do so; it was explained that those experts might be Committees with the competent officials of the Secre- drawn from among the representatives to the General tariat to establish, in so far as practicable, common Assembly. Other delegations stated that, in general, methods of drafting and to ensure that in general the that had been the practice of the General Assembly, and drafting of resolutions was satisfactory from the point it would be advantageous to put it in’to written form. of view of style, f’orm and the use of technical terms, 28. Some ,delegations thought it desirable to provide 36. It was pointed out that there might be certain expressly that drafting should always be performed by practical difficulties in arranging for periodic meetings experts who were representatives ,of governments. of rapporteurs, The Special Committee clecided to make Others thought that drafting ought never to be entrusted no formal recommendation on the subject; nevertheless, to a body different from that which was competent the Committee believes that it is desirable that informal 011 the substance of the question, consultation should take place from time to time be- 29. During the course of the discussion it was tween the various rapporteurs and officials of the pointed out that the Special Committee on Methods Secretariat for the purpose described in the United and Procedures, in paragraphs 13 and 14 of its report, Kingdom proposal, approved by General Assembly resolution 362 (IV) of 22 October 1949 and annexed to the rules of procedure, VI. ANNUAL REPORTS BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL made certain recommendations concerning the drafting of conventions, and concluded: “With regard to the 37. The United Kingdom submitted a draft proposal drafting of legal texts, the Special Committee strongly (A/AC.60/L.23) suggesting that the Secretary-General recommends that small drafting committees should be should be requested to furnish to the General Assembly resorted to whenever possible.“’ an annual report on the matters dealt with by the Special Committee, indicating to what extent the Assem- 30. The Special Committee was in complete agree- bly or its Committees had succeeded during the year ment with those recommendations ,and, in view of their in realizing the objectives aimed at and suggesting previous approval by the General Assembly, did not find any appropriate adjustments or improvements in the it necessary to adopt a new provision on the subject. methods and procedures involved, However, the Speci’al Committee considered it desirable that that point should be reaffirmed in its report. On 38. During the ,discussion, the representative of the that understanding, the United Kingdom withdrew its Secretary-General recalled that the General Assembly, draft proposal. in paragraph 6 of resolution 362 (IV) of 22 October 1949, had requested Bthe Secretary-General ‘Yo carry out appropriate studies and to submit, at such times Drafting of General Asselnbly resoldions as he may consider appropriate, suitable proposals for 31. Some delegations were of the opinion that the the improvement of the methods and procedures of the best results could be obtained in the drafting of General General Assembly and its cotnmittees , . .“, It was Assembly resolutions by providing that the rapporteurs pointed out ‘that the Secretary-General was much con- of Main C,ommittees should consult with the competent cerned with improving the procedures and methods officials of the Secretariat and propose such modifica- &of the Assembly and that there was no need for a new tions in style, form and the use of technical terms as resolution requesting reports on that subject. were necessary. 39, The Special Committee agreed that the points 32. Other delegations thought that not only the rap- covered by the United Kingdom draft cotlld be included porteur but ‘also the chairman an’d vice-chairman of when advisable in reports of the Secretary-General the commi,ttee should also participate in the review of under resolution 362 (IV) ; such reports should be the drafting of resolutions submitted to Committees. submitted at the appropriate times, and at reasonably frequent intervals. Consequently, the United Kingdom 33. ‘On the other hand, some delegations thought draft (A/AC.6O,/L.23) was withdrawn, and the Com- that, while it was always possible for the officers of mittee makes n.o fortnal recommendation on the subject. Committees to consult the Secretariat on drafting problems, such consultation should not be made com- VII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE pulsory. 34. ~1 Salvador submitted a draft proposal (A/ 40, The Special Committee submits the following AC.6O/L.20), which was withdrawn in favour of a recommendations for consideration and adoption by revised text (A/AC.60/L.20/Rev.l) incorporating the General Assembly : amendments by the United Kingdom (A/AC.6O/L.21), Belgiuln and Egypt. The revised draft of El Salvador (a) That, whenever any Committee COntemplateS was adopted by 11 votes to 3, with no abstentions, at making a recommendation to the General Assembly to 6 General Assemldy - Seventh Session - Annexes request an advisory opinion from the International at some appropriate stage of its consideration by thi Court of Justice, the matter shall, at some appropriate Committee, be referred t,o the Sixth Committee fc stage ,of its consideration by that Committee, be re- advice on the drafting of .such amendment and of ar ferred to the Sixth Committee or to an CFd ho,c sub- consequential amendment. committee established by the Committee concerned, for (d) That, when a Committee considers the leg, advice on the legal aspects and on the drafting of the request. aspects of a question important, the Committee shou refer it for legal advice to the Sixth Committee or to i ,(b) That, whenever any Committee contemplates ad ho,c sub-committee of the Committee concerned. making a recommendation ,to the General Assembly to refer i matter to the International Law Commission, (e) That, normally, the chairman of a Committ the Committee shall, at some appropriate stage of its shall, at the appropriate time, call upon the vice-cha!i consideration, consult the Sixth Committee as to the man and the rapporteur to join him for the purpcl advisability of such a reference, and on its drafting. of proceeding, in consultation with the compete (,c> That, whenever any Committee contemplates officials of the Secretariat, t,o examine the draft resol, nlalcing a recommendation for ,the adoption by the tions from the point of view of style, form and t General Assembly of any amendment to the rules of use of technical terms, and, when appropriate, to suggi; procedure of the General Assembly, the matter shall, to the Committee such changes as they deem necessaj

DOCUMENT A/C.6/L.234

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: draft resolution [ Original text: En&i., [ZO October 19.

The General Assembly, General Assembly of any amendment to the rules Co&&ng that it is essential to establish for the procedure of the General Assembly, the matter s11 work of the General Assembly “conditions under which at some appropriate stage of its consideration by I justice and respect for the obligations arising from Committee, be referred to the Sixth Committee treaties and other sources of international law can be advice on the drafting of such amendment and of maintainedl’, and to this end it is desirable that the consequential amendment ; General Assembly improve its methods and procedures (d) That, when a Committee considers the lr for ,dealing with legal and drafting questions, aspects of a question important, the Committee she Taking note of the report and recommendations (A/ refer it for legal advice to the Sixth Committee 0’1 2174) of the Special Committee established under an acE hoc sub-committee of the Committee conccrr resolution 597 (VI) of 20 December 1951, (c) That, normally, the chairman of a Conlmi Decides: shall, at the appropriate time, call upon the v (u) That, whenever any Committee contemplates chairman and the rapporteur to join him for making a recommendation to the General Assembly purpose of proceeding, in consultation with the c to request an advisory opinion from the International petent officials of the Secretariat, to examine the d Court of Justice, the matter shall, at some appropriate resolutions from the point of view of style, form stage of its consideration by that Committee, be re- the use of technical terms, and, when appropriate ferred to the Sixth Committee or to an & lzoc sub- suggest to the Committee such changes as they d committee established by the Committee concerned, for necessary. advice on the legal aspects and on the drafting of the request; Dir&s: (6) That, whenever any Committee contemplates (1) That the terms of the foregoing decisi,on shm snaking a recommendation to the General Assembly to be embodied as an annex to the rules of procedur refer a matter to the International Law Commission, the General Assembly ; the Committee shall, at some appropriate stage of its consideration, consult the Sixth Committee as t,o the (2) That the said annex should also set out, advisabi.lity of such a reference, and on its drafting; batim, paragraphs 19 and 20, 29 and 30, 35 and 36 (lc) That, whenever any Committee contemplates 38 and 39 of the report (A/2174) of the Special C making a recommendation for the adoption by the mittee.